Fujifilm X-series studio comparisons updated with new ACR 7.4 raw process

As I understand it, the K-01's low pricing is because it has been discontinued. Not exactly a point in its favour.

And of course a cameras only factor worth looking into is it's high ISO performance? The 'hipster' look, what as opposed to the 'faux-designer' look of the K-01? Yeah the thing is, the X-E1 is a better camera than the K-01 in every possible way... And I like the K-01.

Could be better camera in some way, but you can only put 5 types fuji´s of lenses on the e-x1. With the K-01 you have at least the same IQ and zillions of lens with out the need of an adapter. So which one is a waist of money? In a hipster way, maybe not.

I wish I had a waist of money. With my waist, I'd be worth a fortune!

Artifacts happen if you sharpen them more. I messed around with the files in 7.4 the other day and noticed that the artifacts are not noticeable if you turn sharpening way down. Which makes the images look softer.

I do wonder if Xtrans needs a unique matrix of USM...

Your question to is a loaded one. The x-trans raw files are clear, they are not sharp, there is a big difference - I like clear, perhaps you like sharp, I only have one clear choice while you have many.

@max metz
True, altough the sharp ones can be made "clear" too with NR. In other words, that leaves the choice open, even after purchase. ;)
To test this I compared the NEX 7 at ISO 1600 with the X- Pro 1 at ISO 3200 (which in reality is about the same real sensitivity, see also the physical exposure settings). Then ran some Topaz Denoise on the NEX file and equalized output size. After which they looked pretty much identical in terms of noise and sharpness.

I ruined it how? I didn't do anything to it, it is what it is. I only edited the NEX file.

That's cos max is an idiot.

You "try to avoid"?

I had no idea that certain sites held such an overwhelming compulsion to return to for some.

Your comments apply to some of us, not all of us. Interesting that in making such blanket categorical statements you yourself display precisely the same form of myopia of those you condemn.

You seem to have failed in your attempt to avoid DPR. And you also failed to say anything useful.

The camera is marketed as the "X-Pro1" --it has "Pro" in the bleedin name! Pros need raw capability. Period.

I just blogged about this the other day: jpeg:raw::polaroid:film

Ansel Adams, held by most to be pretty decent, believed that post (aka darkroom) was important. OOC jpegs make post problematic and introduce artifacts. And worse, jpeg compression, even without manipulation, introduced artifacts.

If you're not an artist or a pro, then fine, be happy with a camera that can only make snapshots. Get a point and shoot. This is a more serious camera and the price and marketing say so. If it doesn't live up to the hype, the flak is well earned.

I understand the popularity of ACR/LR, and therefore the underlying interest, though as it cannot process any higher levels of detail than Fuji's own jpg engine it is still of little relevance until it does..
DPReview has mentioned numerous times though no attempts are made to tweak processing, choosing instead to maintain a level of uniformity in processing so there is some relevance to other sensors. I have tweaked ACR output of the X-Pro1 that surpasses results shown by DPReview. Unless DPReview is going to do the same it lessens the relevance of comparison given that the X-Trans is completely different.
Not trying to be combative btw, I am aware of the time needed to find the best tweak for each sensor versus an established 'average' setting. I am just stating an observation that 'updating' results that still show false softness and overall lack of image detail is doing little but degrading interest in what represents one of the few real evolutionary technologies in this industry.

I don't get the logic here. Just because other camera makers have second rate JPEG engines and need RAW conversion to get more detail does not make it a given that RAW should always provide greater detail.

Fujis JPEGs (S5 included) have always been good on detail. RAW is there in case you need more exposure latitude or more extreme tonal manipulation. Why turn a positive (JPEGS are really sharp) into a negative (RAWs are no sharper)?

Surely the argument should be that other cameras have inadequate JPEGs?

SiliconVoid:

Why imply that DXO processes these Fuj XTrans filtered raws? DXO doesn't.

Silkypix 5 is horrid. (Now the free Silkypix from Fuji for XTrans raws is pretty good, but not at higher ISOs, like above 1000.)

ACR 7.4 has fixed the problem the previous ACR had with greenery shot with say the XPro1, so if you need to do raw extraction with the Fuji files, it's pick ACR 7.4 or buy CaptureOne, or use the free stuff for lower ISO work.

Yes, the XE-1 and XPro1 do very good incamera jpegs, but there are more artifact, WB, dynamic range, and exposure problems with those jpegs than with raws extracted with ACR 7.4 or CaptureOne.

Given the comments about detail, I have to assume you only shoot at ISO 100. Guess what, then a Sigma SD1 Merrill or one of the DP Merrills is the camera for you.

It depends which part of the image you look at. However, using the same sharpening settings for Xtrans as you do for Bayer is possibly not the best approach. Seems to work best if you add a little bit in ACR first.

*facepalm. When's that X20 review coming then?

It's being worked on.

It has nothing to do with the fact that X-TRANS ≠ EXR. The new version of Raw conversion ALSO has an updated demosaicing algorithm for the EXR sensors including X10 (check the list) and you guys promised in its review that the sample from X10 would be updated once this happened.

Manuel, I know that many many feel this way, but I personally do not. How to define obsolete? As a reference point, I regularly use an Olympus C-8080 still (that I bought used a few years back), and love the results it gives me for nature and landscape, even though I have a couple of newer cameras. To each their own, I guess!

I use an E-P1 myself, which is considered obsolete by this minute's standards. When I bought it, Olympus had already discontinued it. Need I say more?
The trouble I see with the Fujis is that they're so expensive that it will take years before they reach reasonable prices at the 2nd hand market. Hence my assertion.
That said I believe the concept of obsolescence is more marketing-induced than real. 'Planned obsolescence' has been widely used by the industry to make consumers get rid of goods they've bought recently in order to buy what is announced as the next big thing. (It works well with cameras!) Call it 'consumerism'...

@Imagefoundry:
I don't like/use LR either, but it is very widely spread.
Besides: DPR offers RAWs for download, so you can do your own comparisons with your preferred software.

McDonalds is by far the most popular restaurant chain in USA (if you can call it that). Shall we use McD burgers as a baseline for comparing quality of beef across the country?

Furthermore, LR popularity is almost a text-book example of monopoly abuse. It's starving smaller developers and it slows down the pace of innovation.

I understand the sentiment about needing some sort of common denominator for comparison purposes, and yes ACR is usually the first to support new cameras. It does not mean you should stop looking for a better solution.

It's an industry standard. It is the software by which other software is measured. Everything in every magazine or newspaper you see today has passed through a piece of Adobe software.

Whether you realize it or not, support by Adobe, and it's underlying raw engine, are immensely important.

That's not necessarily true either (your sheep comment). What's best for one may not be best for others. In fact, when judging one's own needs, one not need even consider others- period. When you say the best, you are talking about you.. therefore the opinion should stop right there, saying others are sheep after only puts YOU back in the pool with them. Think on that.

If I were to pick a mirror-less camera now it would probably be m43, but if high ISO is the goal, than XE-1 seems about a stop better than m43 to me (not a surprise really)

Draschan, I have an E-P1. Its controls are similar to any midrange DSLR, with two exposure dials that you can configure for aperture and shutter speed in M mode. And it's an outdated camera by now! The E-M5 is another camera with manual exposure controls handled by two dials, no fiddling with menus or pushing buttons while rotating a single dial as in the E-PL5. Ergonomics and size aside, both of the aforementioned cameras handle like DSLRs.

@draschan: agreed. I love my EPL5 for size, but I would like a little better manual controls. I teeter on the edge of an OMD (had one before), but as m43 is meant to be my "compact" camera, I keep it small.
@HowaboutRAW: I've used just about every m43 camera, and currently have an EPL5. Lenses currently are P14, O17/1.8, PL25 and P100-300 (and also lens cap lens). I have done a few pics at ISO6400, but not many. If I need high ISO, it's usually for action, and that's where the DSLR comes in, because you also need the focus speed. If you need ISO6400 on the Fuji, you are also doing MF, since the Fuji hunts terrible in low light.
@ ManuelVilardeMacedo - the EP1 is a great cam. I'm hoping the EP5 has the new sensor and the old EPx aesthetic, though I would also love a shutter speed dial :)